Semantic and syntactic factors in the perception of rapidly presented sentences

French, Patrice

doi:10.1007/bf01067295

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, initial findings by Forster [1970] revealed this effect. Linguistically complex sentences (such as passive sentences, sentences with an embedded clause) produced higher recall errors compared to simple active sentences when the number of words was equated; and the recall errors were worse at faster presentation rates [Forster, 1970;Forster and Olbrei, 1972;French, 1981;Holmes and Forster, 1972]. This finding has important implications for studies examining syntactic complexity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 71%

The effect of presentation paradigm on syntactic processing: An event‐related fMRI study

Lee¹,

Newman²

2009

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An event-related fMRI study was conducted to investigate the effect of two different sentence presentation paradigms-rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) and whole sentence presentation-on syntactic processing. During scanning, sentences were presented using one of the two presentation paradigms and were followed by a short delay and a probe to verify sentence comprehension. The delay was included in an attempt to separate sentence-related activity from probe-related activity. The behavioral data showed a main effect of syntactic complexity for reaction time and accuracy, and accuracy revealed an interaction between complexity and the presentation paradigm employed-RSVP produced many more errors for syntactically complex sentences than did whole sentence presentation. The imaging data revealed a syntactic complexity effect during the sentence phase in left BA 44 and during the probe phase in left BA 44 and the left posterior MTG. In addition, timecourse analysis revealed that these two regions also showed an interaction between complexity and presentation paradigm such that there was no complexity effect during RSVP but a significant effect during whole sentence presentation. In addition to finding that these two presentation paradigms differentially affected syntactic processing, there were main effects within the visual pathway (V1/V2 vs. V5) and the hippocampus that revealed significant differences in activation between the paradigms.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 71%

The effect of presentation paradigm on syntactic processing: An event‐related fMRI study

Lee¹,

Newman²

2009

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous work has shown that at rates of RSVP as high as 12 items/s, about 9 words of a 10-word sentence are recalled accurately, whereas when the same words were scrambled only about 6 were recalled, ignoring order errors (Potter et al, 1980; see also Forster, 1970;French, 1981;and Pfafflin, 1974). Thus, the load on encoding processes appears to be substantially reduced for sentences as compared to scrambled sentences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Whole report versus partial report in RSVP sentences

Potter

Nieuwenstein

Strohminger

2008

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sentence is readily understood and recalled when presented 1 word at a time using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) at 10 words/s (Potter, 1984). In contrast, selecting just 2 colored letters at 10 letters/s results in easy detection of the first target but poor recall for the second when it appears 200-500 ms later. This attentional blink disappears when all letters must be reported; instead, performance drops more gradually over serial position (Nieuwenstein & Potter, 2006). Would target words in sentences escape an attentional blink? Subjects either reported 2 target words (in red or uppercase) or the whole 10-word sentence. There was a blink for Target 2 in partial report, but that target was easily remembered in whole report. With scrambled sentences whole report dropped but partial report was unaffected, again showing a blink. The attentional blink is not due to memory processing of Target 1, but to target selection, which is incompatible with sentence processing.

show abstract

“…If we assume that contextual evidence would be greater for normal than for scrambled sentences, decisions about target presence could have been more accurate for normal sentences only because of greater contextual evidence, not because of any influence of context on the extraction of perceptual evidence. Greater contextual evidence would be provided by normal sentences because, even during rapid presentation of a sentence, information about word order and perhaps syntax would be available to help the observer construct a more lucid message than could be produced from a random ordering of the words (see Forster, 1970;French, 1981;Masson, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction of sentence context and perceptual analysis in word identification

Masson

1988

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of sentence context on word identification has, in some interactive models, been attributed to enhanced accuracy or speed of perceptual analysis. This view is challenged by two experiments in which contextually enhanced word identification was found only when a target's relevance to the sentence context was correlated with its presence. When this constraint was removed by using contextually relevant foils, accuracy in detecting words in normal and scrambled sentences did not differ reliably. Moreover, under conditions that constituted a negative correlation between target relevance and presence, word identification was more accurate with scrambled than with normal sentences. These results are consistent with models of sentence context effects that are based on the assumptions that (1) perceptual analysis proceeds independently of contextual analysis, and (2) the results of these analyses are integrated to determine a word's identity.

show abstract

Semantic and syntactic factors in the perception of rapidly presented sentences

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

The effect of presentation paradigm on syntactic processing: An event‐related fMRI study

The effect of presentation paradigm on syntactic processing: An event‐related fMRI study

Whole report versus partial report in RSVP sentences

The interaction of sentence context and perceptual analysis in word identification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About